January 13, 2014

Religious believers, what if you're wrong?

The question is: what if religious believers are wrong about God, afterlife, ultimate reality? Usually the consequences of being wrong are thrown in the face of atheists and infidels.

You'll spend eternity in hell if you're wrong! So you should believe. Running the risk of sacrificing eternal joy for transient earthly pleasure is stupid.

Well, not really.

It comes down to probabilities. As I've noted before, the existence or non-existence of God isn't a 50-50 proposition. Virtually all of the demonstrable evidence points to no-God, no-afterlife.

In fact, mathematician and religious skeptic James Lindsay argues in his book "God Doesn't, We Do" that the probability of God being real is as close to zero as it is possible to get.

Here's what Lindsay says in a God doesn't exist, almost surely section.

First, when considering the claim that titles this chapter and section, observe that making it is not lost to philosophical indefensibility because it does not flatly deny the possibility of the existence of God. It claims only that the probability that God exists is zero, almost surely.

Second, notice that it serves as the perfect default position in dealing with any existence claim before evidence is provided for it.

In every situation where there is a question about a positive claim that is not settled, the only honest point in investigating the matter is one that assigns the lowest possible philosophically defensible probability for the truth of that claim.

...Since it is not the case that assuming "probability zero" means "no possibility," the severe lack of satisfactory evidence that we see in the world concerning every question about God renders probability zero, almost surely, as the only acceptable starting guess that is philosophically defensible.

Later Lindsay asks religious believers some tough questions in a "What if you're wrong?" section. Here's a sampling.

-- What if you, believer, are right about there being a God but picked the wrong one?

-- What if you're right about God but picked the wrong religion to worship Him, as Muslims, Jews, and Christians mutually claim about each other?

-- What if you're right about God and your religion but wrong about which denomination, sect, or church has it right?

-- What if no demomination or person has figured it out correctly yet?

-- Can you, in your little corner of faith, in your tiny denominational box, shaded by your own personal perception, interests, likes, and dislikes, really be so sure that all of these billions of others have it wrong and that you have it right?

-- What if you are wrong about God's existence?

-- What, then, are you doing with some or much of your life?

-- How much time and effort are you wasting chasing fairy tales out of a book that is ancient literature turned social-control manual?

-- What are you doing to yourself, to your psychological well-being, when you must constantly lie to yourself about your worldview, which does not match your view of the world anywhere you look without relying on rationalizations and contortions of facts?

-- What are you ignoring or failing to learn about the world or yourself because you think you already have answers or because you want them less than your cherished beliefs?

-- What are you doing when you support inhuman social policies, hold back education, suppress healthy expressions of sexuality, oppose beneficial measures in regards to sexual health, deny others their basic human rights, curse the names and lives of your enemies or go to war with them, vote for idiotic politicians because you like their beliefs, held without evidence, enough to act without regard of their backwards ideas on key matters of policy?

-- What are you asking from those of your friends, your family, and your community who do not believe and yet are currently all but forced to listen to and to pretend to respect your religious beliefs, delusional rambling, misplaced thanksgiving, and unflattering solipsism?

-- What actions and thoughts do you deny or attempt to deny yourself on the grounds of your faith, activities and mindsets that might bring enjoyment, pleasure, meaning, or fulfillment to your life?

-- Which of those do you do anyway, needlessly hating yourself for it even while you do it?

-- What do you do only because you hope for bonus points with your imagined creator, selfishly trying to improve the chances that you will get your reward?

Comments

There are no valid "what if's", for believers or unbelievers. There can only be "what is", and we are all forever free to regard "what is" in any way we see fit. What is finally "real" is unavoidable and will not yield to personal convictions.
From the above-cited quotations, it looks like Mr. Lindsay is another "cry-baby" atheist, who believes (sic) that believers in a supernatural God are actually responsible for the lion's share of the social ills that continue to plague our species. And, that those self-same believers do not actually enjoy themselves, and do not think that atheists are capable of enjoying themselves.

Reality, under which everything that exists or does not exist is subsumed, trumps both belief and unbelief. Facts and fallacies, too.

I agree with Willie R. Many atheists sound like disappointed believers whose intellects would not allow them to rationally continue to do so. They're pissed off and alone with their mortality. So they cry out in the wilderness with their bitching. I prefer quiet, humble non-believers who leave the cushion of belief to those who choose it...as long as they leave others alone.

it looks like Mr. Lindsay is another "cry-baby" atheist, who believes (sic) that believers in a supernatural God are actually responsible for the lion's share of the social ills that continue to plague our species.

Why is it "cry-baby" to see the retarded, ignorant, pig-headed lunacy of religious believers as the major cause of our difficulties? Go anywhere in the world where people are committing mass murder, brutal oppression, and ecological destruction, and invariably you'll find the casus belli to be the religious precepts held by the worst offenders.

I prefer quiet, humble non-believers who leave the cushion of belief to those who choose it...as long as they leave others alone.

The "cushion of belief" becomes a bomb when conditions change and the believer is compelled to act according to religious conviction rather than rationally. If you're living without the cushion, you know it's not only unnecessary, but a dead weight that dulls and blunts the mind, making stupid and violent behavior justifiable. If you think the cushion is benign and that cushion carriers ought to be left alone, you're carrying a cushion.

june, you're kidding, right? What did "cc" say that makes him sound dangerous? To me, religious believers who act irrationally on the basis of faith and imagined reality are way more dangerous to both other human beings and the planet.

No I'm not kidding.. He attacts peoples hearts. I'v seen it many times.. I consider that very dangerous..Tucson was just being impartial...But often when one is just trying to make a comment that is reconsidery he will put that person down..

June,
I suggest not taking cc's comments too hard or personally. Sure, he can be abrasive, but that's just his style. We have had other commenters here who can be plenty blunt. Prime example, tAo. Still, their comments can be insightful. I'm sure cc enjoys commenting on this blog because he has the freedom to express his opinions frankly and openly without having to resort to being PC and kiss somebody's fleshy posterior seat cushion. That's what it's all about...freedom.

Atheists are incensed by the blatant condescension of Theists, especially when couched in what Alan Watts referred to as the "plainly indentifiable stink of piety".

Hmmmm....maybe that stink is the Divine Halitosis. After all, the other night, just for shits and giggles, I tuned into a John Hagee video, where that fiery preacher explained that man is a creature that was deliberately hand-formed by God out of clay, and was given life because God breathed directly and purposefully on the clay figurine. Thanks for the info, pastor Hagee!

I thought I would add a dash of levity to this blog posting - before the tone gets way too serious.

I'm sure cc enjoys commenting on this blog because he has the freedom to express his opinions frankly and openly without having to resort to being PC and kiss somebody's fleshy posterior seat cushion. That's what it's all about...freedom.

Right you are, tucson. For Brian's toleration of my religious intolerance, I am grateful.

cc please may I give you a poem..."Abou Ben Adhem(May His Tribe Increase) Awoke one night from a deep dream of peace,and saw within the moonlight of his room,and angel writing in a book of gold....Peace had made him bold and he asked.."What writest Thou?" The angel replied...The names of those that Love the Lord.....And is mine one replied Abou......Nay not so replied the angel.....Then Abou humlely but cheerly said......Then write me down as one who loves his fellow-men...The angel went then came again the next night.....And lo Ben Adhem's name led all the rest........I'm sure Leigh Hunt will excuse my poetic license....Don't know why I do this cc I just felt compelled to...

cc if like read the poem...I just gave the highlights, no butchery intended..I don't know how to transfer direct from the internet yet...It was just to long for me to type, also the originally is a bit archaic don't you think.

I don't know what the poem says to you, June, but it conveys the sentiment that God doesn't want us to love Him, but to love each other. If this is true, God disapproves of and reproaches those who talk about God and praise God and hold religious precepts.

My personal experience doesn't illustrate the monstrosity of religion as well as history and current events do, but I can say that my experience with "spirituality" was much like Brian's. I awoke from a faith-based belief in "enlightenment" to the enlightening effect of being fact-based.

Religion/spirituality arrests mental development. The brain can't learn to think reasonably, logically, when it's conditioned to believe in that for which there is no evidence, and this is what religion does to young brains conditioned to believe before they're developed enough to learn to think rationally. Religion/spirituality nips intellectual development in the bud by molesting the minds of children. Is that monstrous enough for you?

The "damage" is done before you know it, Roger. It begins even before Santa Claus.

We all have our opinions, however your comments seem to bring out a person(cc)heavily damaged by religion/spirituality.

The effect of arresting intellectual development that religion/spirituality has on the mind is not "damage". Intellectual development can be stunted, compromised, and postponed by religious belief, but a mind that is not satisfied with nostrums, platitudes, and wishful thinking will inevitably purge itself of such nonsense and awaken to rationality and the need for critical thinking.

Consider the life of Brian as demonstrable proof. It is not unusual for one to carry on as a believer for decades before realizing the error of that way and correcting for it.

Thank you The scientist I enjoyed the link a bit long but well worth it I recommend it....May I share with you a poem with gratitude........The arrow and the song..By H. Longfellow......I shot an arrow into the air,..I fell to earth, I know not where,...For so swiftly it flew, the sight could not follow its flight......I breathed a song into the air, it fell to earth I know not where........For who had sight so keen and strong, that it can follow the flight of song.....Long, long after in an oak I found the arrow, still unbroke.....And the song from beginning to end I found again....In the heart of a friend.

If you need God to exist, you'll find "signs" of His existence everywhere, constantly. When you're young or mentally immature, you need to believe in Someone looking out for you, guiding you, consoling you, rewarding you, promising you eternity, etc. When/if your mind develops to where you're rational enough to think more in terms of what actually is than what-should-be, you leave God behind, along with all the other stimulating fantasies and super-heroes of childhood.

"1) whatever begins to exist - must have a cause
(2) the universe did begin to exist
(3) the universe must have a cause

when the universe began - time and space also began at the same 'time'. (how contradictory is that - that 'time' began at a certain 'time')"

Throughout history the ‘cause’ has been limited to a number of causes such as: -

The diversity of species – all thought to have been caused by God.

The weather, earthquakes, floods – all thought to have been caused by God.

The sun, moon and the earth – all thought to have been caused by God.

The movement of the planets, the sun and the Earth – all thought to be caused by God.

Science (simply knowledge of the physical world and nature), has demonstrated the true nature of these causes without recourse to a God. It has now pushed the boundaries of ‘causes’ 13.5 billion years ago to the ‘big bang’.

All of the above ‘causes’ have not needed a God. No doubt the origins/cause of the universe will someday, likewise be answered, but as limited human beings there will always be reasons/causes unanswered - and inevitably many will continue to squeeze a God into the gap.

Is that so? How can you, who are not "beyond time and space and matter", even speculate about what, if anything, is or can be? Your above conclusion is as delusional as your belief in God.

If you're really interested in causes, inquire into the cause of your belief in God. Before you gathered your "evidence", you'd already concluded that God existed because you needed Him to be there for you. Be honest, fer crisake.

TheScientist, physical existence could have existed forever. No need to theorize an extra "god" that has existed forever. If something has always existed, why not posit that it is what we know exists now: physical existence?

"The effect of arresting intellectual development that religion/spirituality has on the mind is not "damage". Intellectual development can be stunted, compromised, and postponed by religious belief, but a mind that is not satisfied with nostrums, platitudes, and wishful thinking will inevitably purge itself of such nonsense and awaken to rationality and the need for critical thinking."

---Nicely copied/pasted "cc" person. You still don't seem to want to discuss what happened to you, an event or process, that makes you so bitter towards religion in general. If you prefer to be silent, so be it. Referencing other persons experiences is just a cheap distraction on your part.

---All that said, you do have the freedom of choice to comment which ever way you choose.

---Please reference the explanation location. A must read, maybe and maybe not.

Here it is, Roger...my response to your question...that you accused me of plagiarizing. All you had to do was scroll up to find it.

"Religion/spirituality arrests mental development. The brain can't learn to think reasonably, logically, when it's conditioned to believe in that for which there is no evidence, and this is what religion does to young brains conditioned to believe before they're developed enough to learn to think rationally. Religion/spirituality nips intellectual development in the bud by molesting the minds of children. Is that monstrous enough for you?"

Roger, you seem to think my experience has misshapen and warped me because my view of religion does not accord with yours. I've made it clear why religion is a bad thing - especially for children - and you dismiss my explanation as a bitter, angry condemnation rather than the dispassionate observation that it is. Why? Is what I've said about religion untrue? If so, please elaborate.

"Then explain why it is so difficult to let go of the bitteness and anger. Again, this part could help others to avoid what you are going through."

This statement reminds me of the occasions when discussing beliefs (or rather the lack of) and so on with people they often retort "I feel sorry for you". It usually signifies an expression of the ego - a way of dismissing a person's views in order to make one feel justified regarding their own views.

It seems to be a defence mechanism aimed at maintaining a sense of self based on past programming of what I believe I am; for many it is painful to their 'self structure' to contemplate that some of the conditioning absorbed may be incorrect and can almost feels like a denial of what is believed to be 'me', my 'self'.

Regarding the gist of this blog 'What if you're wrong', perhaps because our beliefs (or lack of) constitute a large part of who/what we believe we are we prefer to ignore or dismiss them.

I am not opposed to sharing personal details but it is interesting how we often use such info just to maintain an established and perhaps false sense of self.

Roger, you're repeating yourself. Personal testimonies may carry a lot of weight with you because they're the bedrock of religious belief, but I find them tiresome and unreliable. This blog exists to discuss religion and whether it has any merit, or is a blight and a pernicious influence. I've explained why I see religion as something the human species needs to rid itself of, and I'd like to know why you disagree. Pray tell, what do you like about religion? Clearly, you disapprove of those who speak against it. Why?

"...... and I'd like to know why you disagree. Pray tell, what do you like about religion? Clearly, you disapprove of those who speak against it. Why?"

---Nicely prepared distraction from my specific questions, directed to you "cc" person. This website is not about liking religion. What have I written, in the last 5 years of commenting here, that is of a pro religion point of view?

What have I written, in the last 5 years of commenting here, that is of a pro religion point of view?

When you asked me to explain why I see religion as a "monster", I did, and you concluded that I was bitter and angry, damaged by my experience with religion. When I elaborated on my explanation of what's wrong with religion, you accused me of plagiarism.

It seems to me you protest too much. If you're not pro-religion, what's your objection to my anti-religious position? Why do you assume there must be something wrong with someone who finds nothing redeemable and much execrable about religion?